Blurs

The Diplomacy of Taking Sides: Are Countries Trading Neutrality for Influence? The mass walkout during Benjamin Netanyahu's UN speech looked like a dramatic diplomatic statement.  But behind the theatre lies a more complicated question: when governments publicly choose sides, what does it do to their ability to negotiate with everyone else? On 24 September 2026, Benjamin Netanyahu began addressing the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Within moments, dozens of delegates began leaving the chamber. The scene was highly visible: representatives stood, gathered their papers and filed out as the Israeli prime minister approached the podium.  Reuters described dozens of delegates walking out, while other reporting identified delegations from countries including Türkiye, Palestine, Tunisia, Syria, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia and Kuwait among those participating in the protest. Some countries reportedly left o...

What if the International Stabilisation Force became something very different from what its mandate promised—and how would we recognise it? If we treat this strictly as a hypothetical geopolitical scenario—that the ISF publicly presented as a neutral stabilisation force was secretly being used by the US and Israel to establish long-term strategic control over Gaza and its surrounding energy interests—the consequences would probably be much more complicated than simply “the ISF takes over and controls the oil”. But if the hidden objective were indeed Black Ops, this is how the scenario could evolve. Hypothetical scenario: The ISF as a disguised strategic occupation Phase 1 — The humanitarian justification The operation would begin looking remarkably legitimate. The ISF would arrive under the language of: - protecting civilians - delivering humanitarian aid - preventing renewed fighting - supervising disarmament - training Palestinian police - securing borders - facilitating reconstructi...

The proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) is one of the most ambitious and controversial elements of the international plan for Gaza. It is intended to help create the security conditions for a transition from wartime control towards Palestinian civilian administration, while supporting a ceasefire, protecting civilians and humanitarian operations, and assisting with the removal of military infrastructure and weapons. On paper, the concept sounds straightforward: an international force enters Gaza, helps maintain order, supports the transition to Palestinian governance and eventually withdraws. In reality, almost every part of that plan raises difficult questions. Who will command the force? Which countries will send troops? What happens if armed groups refuse to disarm? How will international troops distinguish between peacekeeping and combat? And perhaps most importantly, can a foreign military force establish stability without becoming another party to the conflict? The a...